Onasander

First one was when Alexander Severus was assassinated. Christianity entered into a period of plural ascendency (but not really above any of the other cults of the empire, just the beginnings of acceptance). Had he not been killed, Christianity likely never would of sought to stamp out paganism in the manner it did, as it theologically at its root was a nonviolent, socialist movement. Old style paganism might still be around if not for this period of decline, if not Rome itself, as it suffered a economic collapse it never fully recovered. Hence why I call Emperor Thrax "Thrax the Douche" (Dux), a play of words of sorts. He is the one who killed him out of prejudice. The persecutions carried on Till Constantine, but by that point Christianity got vindictive for rather understandable reasons. Wish it hadn't, but human nature is human nature, and the church went overnight from a persecuted underground religion to defacto governing of aspects of roman society, including those who used to just recently persecute them. The second revolt occurred in the western empire, which I had to change my ultimate cause for the western imperial collapse on. Many of my older posts on this dite , whenever we would debate what caused the collapse of the western empire, I would defiantly point out every argument OTHER than the Romans not caring to maintain their military in a manner capable of holding its territory. No cause other than this can be blamed, not lead pipes or low birth count, etc. Had Rome kept a stro g military, it would of stayed put. Well, I've partially changed my opinion. Its still strongly military oriented, but I have to acknowledge, the Romans DID have a western army at the time, however disappointing. It was based in Italy, but had to head out west because some Pagan landowners were throwing hissyfits, at just the wrong moment. The Roman Army was caught off balanced and barbarian tribes came rolling in. Had they been better centrally positioned, they could of better held the west and the imperial authority, but they weren't. The Irony is these Pagan landowners unlikely got to keep their lands long term, as they were better off with Rome. Not that I can say with certainty any given estate was dispossessed and taken over, just seems logically that would be the case, especially considering many of the barbarians were somewhat Christianized by this point, and unlikely inclined to a Pagan large landowner successfully presenting a case at to why he should continue to be a local big shot while the new rulers all start from scratch. The reasons why I emphasized the two revolts was, especially in the late 20th century, but also including today, we get a lot of heavily biased and deeply ignorant Neo-Paganist who rewrite history along Nietzschean lines of arguments that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, that it brought ignorance and disease, and Paganism was Rome's true strength. This is a retarded argument. The Eastern Empire lasted till the mid 15th century under Christianity. It was going strong till Justinian's Plague hit.... was even reconquering the Western Empire, including retaking the City of Rome. Plague stopped that. Not to mention severe exhaustion from a mutually cataclysmic war with the Persians, which the Muslims exploited. Even then, Christians survived, Pagan Persia went bye-bye, and Catholic Church in west expanded. So I use the term more or less as a counter emphasis. Now a deeper truth is, the pagan groups most these modern pagans long for had already kicked the bucket effectively by time of the First Pagan Revolt. In John of Salisbury largest work, there is a fragment in the opening of a work slamming who I'm perceiving to be Emperor Augustus (Seneca in his "Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius" based his book on this theme) If I recall, book 3, chapter 14 "Flatters Should Be Punished": J. Sar. Pol. III. 14. Adulatores puniendos esse, tamquam hostes Deorum et hominum, et veritatem gratanter amplectendam, et patientiam custodiendam, tam rationibus quam exemplis maiorum. 1. Sed, ut vulgari proverbio dicitur, Deus ille prae ceteris colendus creditur, qui subvenit in praesenti. Ideoque non curant quomodo, dum tamen hoc quod expetunt faciant. Egregie quidem Caecilius Balbus, Imperator, inquit, Auguste, tum in multis, tum in eo maxime elucet prudentia tua, quod isti nondum te omnino insanum reddiderunt, qui ut tibi applaudant, non modo Diis, sed tibi ipsi et populo iniuriam faciunt. Deorum siquidem minuunt reverentiam, quo parificant tibi. Te arguunt insipientiae, dum conditionis tuae repugnante natura, te parem numinibus esse persuadere praesumunt. Nota superstitionis inurunt populum, cui mortales Deos pro immortalibus persuadent esse colendos. 2. Sane in eo aliquid divinum tibi inesse monstrabis, si omnes istos, qui divinitati tuae fraudulenter applaudunt, rapi feceris ad tormenta. Quis enim Deorum ei parcat, a quo se deceptum iri intelligit? Quis non irruat in eum, qui aureos Jovis oculos eruit, aut argento gemmisque sublatis Vestam nititur excaecare? Quis de Martis capite adamantinum lumen impune temerariis effodit unguibus? 3. Nempe Deos invisibiles et immortales circumvenire, et eis fallaciae parare insidias, gravioris culpae est, eo quod ab his visibilium Deorum fabrica sustentatur et regitur, et honorem aut contemptum qui istis exhibetur, illi remunerant. Si sapis ergo, Auguste, in Deorum hostes insurges, et te, si non Deum, quod nequaquam es, vel Deorum te docebis esse cultorem, si deceptores istos exterminaveris, excaecatores tuos, Deorum contemptores, et utrorumque iniuniam punias. Haec Caecilius. English can be found in book 3, 14 of John of Salisbury's Poliocratus, just the link isn't working on my phone this moment. Basically, the old Roman conservatism in approaching its old order of Gods was collapsing under Julius Caesar's cult. Caldrail has given many reasons why, but this IS the reason, this guy and the faction he represented cause Augustus to seriously back off. As we were translating this (prior to knowing it was already translated in John of Salisbury) I did a massive amount of background research in just how Augustus dealt with these flatters and synchophants. He went out of his way to distance himself, more or less playing to Balbus' tune, in giving just such a conservative air himself. When people went out of their way to applaude him in the Senate, he rejected it. It was assumed prior to my finding thus fragment it was because of Caesar's end. But now I'm more or less convinced he was just scared of this clique, and found it easier to play on their side than against them, as he needed their support the most, and they were his main threat to boot, likely the most prone to republicanism given their extreme religious conservative outlook and passionate hatred of the cult of the divine emperor, be he dead or living. This fragment is the key, the most essential key, to understanding Augustus and the principate. Rome already started to lose the emphasis of its old religions to new religions coming in from Syria and Egypt, such as the cult of ISIS. The Neo-Pythagorean Philosopher Numeniys tried to JumpStart the Pythagorean Philosophy, and was a massive influence on the rise of Neo-Platonism, but Numenius was influenced by Judaism and Christianity as well, and Christianity and Neo-Platonism were both influenced by Platonism, and Neo-Platonism had heavy elements imported from India, the Vedanta religion, inherent in it.... which the older spectrum of Roman Paganism most definately was NOT a part of. In the end, you had Vedantic Neo-Platonist arguing with a religion actually native to the Roman Empire, Christianity, bashing heads, while many independent pagan groups migrated more and more towards simple Sun Worship, as recorded by Macrobius, who was himself a pagan. The understanding of pagan rites deteriorated in terms of understanding. Christians thrived under pogroms and bloody persecutions, but much less was launched against the pagans and they cracked. Their schools (some) were outlawed. Hypatia was killed (which was wrong, but I assure you, the Romans of Scorpio's time would of done worst to her) and the branch library was PARTIALLY burned, after the mist important books were set aside for the university of Constantinople, where the neoplatonist school was eventually moved. Honestly, as bad as it was, the Christians and the ISIS cults had it worst. The pagan religions had a remarkable tendency to die off if not state supported, and crumbled easily under mild persecutions. Now I use mild relative, and only in regards to other persecutions the romans in their long spectrum engaged in. Dying under a mild persecution was really a horrible experience, no doubt and not to be overlooked by historians, but at the same time we must ask why they lacked the institutional and psychological resiliency as a group to carry on when other religions obviously could under more stifling circumstances. So that is the two pagan revolts. The Christian abhorance to the deification of emperors have ideological roots to the older, pre-augustan religion that rejected just as much the concept of a sick little tyrant being paraded around and fawned over.... however, Christianity until the first pagan revolt wasn't political either, or even republican or monarchial. I recommend reading that quote in English (I can't provide my translation without my partners permission, and vice versa), and The Pumpification of the Divine Claudius (by Seneca) immediately afterwards. Then read about what happened to Alexander Severus, and how bad the empire got under his replacement, and its resurgence under Constantine. Furthermore, the movements of the western roman army in putting down rebellions right before the barbarians started pouring in. I never would of emphasized the two revolts if it wasn't for the very bad, and deeply hipocritical assault by modern pagans upon Christianity. It was in Rome's latter days its last bastion of strength. Rome morphed religiously, a lot. You had to be a very big state funded temple to last centuries without much change, but the paganism on the street would of been constantly changing. Just look at Hippolytus, he lists a whole bunch of variation, the vast majority of which never got recognition or official imperial christian shutdown. A little of it exists to this day in fact.

New form? As opposed to the old Etruscan Monarchy? Or the monarchy of Persia, or Egyptians, Babylonians, Gauls? What made it "a new form", in terms of divergent characteristics? I'm nitpicking only due to the fact students and authors view this site a lot, a phrase of that can spawn a theory of some new form of monarchism among historians that other sociologists will someday scratch their heads at. Monarchies, especially dynastic ones, don't always begin squeaky clean in line with the presumptions of the population, customs, or even constitutions. Take for example, how many young princes have been placed under a regency of a older uncle, general, or minister and they later on launched a coup or the young prince mysteriously died? Or Marxist and Anarchist Kingdoms in North Korea and formerly Libya. I don't think there is anything too special about Augustus and Caesar that merits giving them their own special subcategory within monarchy, other than the farce carried on that they were not a monarchy.... which is understandable given the Roman adversion to outright accepting a return to monarchism, as it hurt their apecial identity as a republic. But Greeks had parallels prior, and plenty of societies since. Rome does play as a arvhetype, a important one, but not special in and of itself in giving it a separate status for political theorists to nitpick.

Ummm... sorry, there isn't really free trade when you have slave and guilds, and the beginnings of Surfdom. US came the closest in the south with mixing free trade and slavery, and you saw how that ultimately turned out. I'm still scratching my head here about some of the hijinks of having slaves on farms (orchard groves over wide geographical areas) and in industry (nail factories), as well as in river transport. It kinda worked, but not really in many trades. Rome was around for a very long time, roughly two millennia. I can't say the Colonnia or the people forced to live free in the Byzantine cities to boost the civic demographics collapse were involved in free trade, or in reality how long the embargo on senatorial finances outside of traditional republican values lasted. But at times in Roman history what you said could be right. But I get the distinct feeling having set prices at some ports made free trade not free trade.... but I don't know when this began and ended either.

Ummm.... Water deity, temple. Ummm.... What is the local topography. You said your area is known for its spring, and is along a roman road. Sounds like a rest stop not near a creek or river, or its mineral water. Hmmmm..... so the temple, even if under, if still intact, can still be scanned and thus mapped, but if its a water God, the artifacts of most interest would be.... in the water. Hence the topography question. Where is the water pooling, as in the low point? A former, or still present lake? Any medieval Lady in the Lake sword tossing? Sounds like metal detector sort of stuff. I just found this, I've been trying to figure out who was the first person to record the idea of the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, no luck, beyond a Canadian GED test claiming it was Roman Geographers. This Arabia related link popped up from the 1800s dealing with Rome: The Greek and Roman writers in general divided Arabia into two parts, Arabia Deserta (i) fpvuos 'Atti&a), namely, the northern desert between Syria and the Euphrates, and Akabia Felix (rj cvoal/iw "Apos'itt), comprising the whole of the actual peninsula (Diod. Sic, ii. 48. foil.; Strab. xvi. p. 767; Mflajti.8; Plin.vi.28. s.32). Respecting the origin it the appellation Felix, see below (§ III). The third 4rf itrion, Arabia Petraea (tj neTpeu'o 'ApaSia) is f.rt distinctly mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 17. § 1). It included the peninsula of Sinai, between the two fulfs of the Red Sea, and the mountain range of Idarnea (Mt. Seir), which runs from the Dead Sea to the Aelanitic Gulf (Gulf of Akabah); and derived its name, primarily, from the city of Petka (h 'ApaSia % fa n«Tf^, Diosoor. de Mat. Med. i. 91; il Icoto r)p Zlhpay'ApaBla, Agathem. Geogr. ii. 6), ox, u b orVcn supposed, from its physical ciiaracter, as if the Stony or Rocky Arabia, however well the name, in this sense, would apply to a portion of it This division is altogether unknown to the Arabians themselves, who confine the name of Arabland to the peninsula itself, and assign the greater part of Petraea to Egypt, and the rest to Syria, and call the desert N. of the peninsula the Syrian Desert, notwithstanding that they themselves are the masters of it. https://books.google.com/books?id=9y0BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=roman+geographers+named+tropic+of+cancer&source=bl&ots=yWRQFhC4FF&sig=xyK81HJ1u0rsgJ5_HRXdYjW2Pbo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dqocVZS8M5PkoASZ4YCACQ&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAzgK

http://alexandriaarchive.org/bonecommons/items/show/1636 I found this oddity after clicking through a few links on a completely unrelated news article. Apparently from what I gather, is a few camels have been found across Europe recently suggesting they were used as pack animals all over the empire, not just in its desert provinces.

Romans were not involved in Judea very long when this command was given, so I get the whole raping the provinces of their wealth, but they seemed to of grasped the economics of trade and how to regulate and tax ports and markets, they definitely had their hands in deep. The Senate wasn't in charge anymore, but it often had a regulatory if not administrative say in things too, and as you pointed out, they gained status via wealth, meaning they knew economics well enough to get rich. I don't expect transparency of fiscal collection of resources, but I do think they had ideas floating around that were near utilitarian in regards to management of resources. Stoic and Peripatetic Philosophy had elements of this inherit in it, how the polis was structured from the household up. Likewise Christianity according to some theorists, especially Trinitarian Doctrine, placed hugh emphasis on economic management. Just, at the same time.... the imperium was unstable, and not exactly promoted on merit, but more like Nepotism or Will to Power, so I don't expect such ideas to ever gain the assendency for long. In a few cases, like Marcus Aurelius you see glimpses.

Estimated shipping date: May 4th

So what the Greeks do isn't self evident.... Bury the people for a few years, pop them back up, and then put them in a much smaller box? Its how they got a few saints, some of their monastics didn't rot. They only know from that process.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription http://shoebat.com/2015/02/04/isis-caliph-al-baghdadi-just-issues-official-reward-anyone-kills-coalition-pilots-muslims-joyful-burning-jordanian-pow-uae-succumbs-threat-drops/ Looks like someone in ISIS is a fan of Roman history. Romans did the exact same thing.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/03/27/dnt-inmates-gladiators-fight.kron?iid=ob_homepage_featured_pool&iref=obnetwork Yeah.... now you understand why I never wanted to be a prison guard. How similar is this mentality to that of the Romans?

I'm not a supporter really of revelations, as it makes little sense to me that the Anti-Christ wouldn't just read it and be like 'crap, I'm certainly not doing it like this now'.... it barely got in on the canon list.... But to say it reads like a ISIS text is bull. There are several schools of prophetic revelation used in Christian and Jewish history, I can point indeed to a few old testiment books (Catholic bible) that reads like a Jihadi call to arms. But their not really prophecies. We have prophetic schools, Jeremiah and his school stands out in particular. I found a fragment attributed to him in De Nugis Philisphocum I couldn't trace back to the bible, and it confused me, and started getting priests involved, and discovered he had a whole school of debatable aphocrapha attributed to him and his students.... whole purpose of which in their school's debate was to determine what was a legit prophecy, and what wasn't. There just wasn't a long prophecy like Revelations, it was usually quite short. Revelations stands out in this regard. Shortness obviously doesn't make it legit, in any school, but this size issue certainly stands out. I can't say at all revelations resembles anything ISIS is walking around proclaiming. They say a lot of foolish bull, and look drugged up in their pronouncements at times, but that fits neither in prophecy or fatwa. Their just being obnoxious dicks. They lack authority to launch Fatwas (gotta be a recognized scholar within a larger community of scholars, not a middle eastern redneck, and custom is your asked before the fatwa is issued, and fatwa only applies to the one who issues it, not necessarily the one who requested the pronouncement). They make the same pronouncements any Full of S soldier ever has made about success. Of the prophecies they use, I haven't heard too many Revelations class grand pronouncements. They expect a Roman army to show up, that's about it. I'm kinda intrigued in seeing where this lost roman legion is gonna come from myself. But this isn't revelations class in scope or character at all. Revelations is a full blown drama, a history of the future scene by scene in considerable detail. Its this detail and storyline that makes it still relevant, even if its of debateable as a legit text, which I'm not too inclined to believe. It can be read hermeunetically, and is resistance against a unjust tyranny that disguises itself as something wonderful and good. Its a perennial fountain of scepticism in regards to government motivations. Its very likely the reason the US has lasted so long as a moderate power when Europe over the last century swung so radically from the disturbing extremes of its political movements. As soon as its done with one system, quite often FORCED to stop their systems from World Wars, they just leap willy nilly into another absurd radical belief. Revelations gives a lot of strength to those who seek to resist these tyranny of the majorities. It keeps a state honest, and within bounds. It takes several generations to see at times how government policies unwind into chaos. Here, its vehemently rejected a priori. We pay very close attention to ensuring were not making 'THAT' sort of a problem arise. And let's be honest, your country Caldrail is quite Nietzschean, and decadent. If it can happen anywhere, it can happen in England. I'm of course approaching revelations as Socrates approached Myth. Its unlikely true, but has a kernal of truth in that is predicts how a tyranny and need to identify yourself as a just resistance arises. Its therefore is a essential religious text for any democracy to study. I can't imagine a more damning book for ISIS. It inspires resistance to the bootleg Caliphate. Every resistance movement that ever existed is gonna have elements inherit in it that parallel revelations. Just the way it is, human psychology. Its eternally revelant. I don't think its legit as prophecy, but its been very useful. It kept America on the straight and narrow even as your country collapsed into a twisted nothingness. Yould be speaking Russian right now on your island if it wasn't for this effect. The English Civil War happened here in America as well, may of hit us harder in terms of cultural impact. It seriously affected our sense of self government, God, and severe aversion to tyranny. SEVERE. Book of Revelations is entwined in this. Why do you think Obama lost control?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/03/31/why-some-ancient-people-cut-flesh-off-their-dead/ It should be noted, though cannibalism isn't noted, its obviously a possibility. Italians continue to eat Eels and Horses to this day. It wasn't always Spaghetti like its portrayed in the west.

Trees, the flowering kind, have a sex organ in each flower. Its not like mammal sex. So long as a pollinating creature moves between them and the fruit falls, they potentially are good, questions of genetic diversity aside. I'm sure Israel has good botanists working out just such a plan to ensure these trees do indeed reach necessary diversity in a few generations. Why would the Romans try so hard to destroy an economic staple of a province it held for hundreds of years? I can understand a stupid order being put foreword in the beginning, but like, after a while some tax collector should of mentioned to the governor that the imperial policy of "Fuck You Trees" (As in the movie "The Interview" sense) just isn't wise financially for the province, or for its stewardship of the productive capacity of the soil.

Hmmm. What kind of temple are we talking about? And I don't see why diagonal and horizontal (dug at depth parallel) sonar scans can't pick up the site if the pillars didn't penetrate it. Hopefully you live on a floodplain and its quite deep under. Core Samples can also be done, as well as doing very simple magnetic sweeps. I myself can't use a metal detector here because a century of having a steel mill has dropped balls of pig iron literally everywhere. Plus the deeply restarted cops think I'm using it to look for schrooms (I'm still mystified about that logic, it can't sniff or think, just beeps when its over metal. They drop a lot of money on patrolling the distant woods, but can't get them when you call them in town). I also know its common practice, once a bridge needs repaired, or even torn down, to build a bridge next to it while the other is being worked on. If you can establish in the meantime a temple IS THERE, you could likely get in a season of controlled excavations with your "Ministry of Transportation" (whatever you call it), going under the bridge in tunnels that will be filled in after. If being torn down.... Well, that is one hellish dig. Hugh concrete structure and massive pile of dirt. Hence core samples and indirect scan signatures beforehand.

I can't apparently quote off my phone, Robert Lamberton's "Homer the Theologian" is a good source for arguments for and against. On Kindle.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/tents-yurts-homes-local-nomadic-asian-people-dry-grass-mountain-valley-38301214.jpg That picture reminds me of the archeological method of finding roman sites by the fauna diversity in a small area, apparently roman settlements caused a nitrogen upsurge in the ground that caused the land, once abandoned, to grow feral to a level of diversity that the lands not inhabited were unable to achieve. I'm looking around the yurts, I can see dry grass everywhere, but green grass a good foot or two out around the yurts. Why? Nitrogen? I dunno. I just assume the Romans were lazy slobs who left garbage outside, or dug latrines a lot. This isn't that case. Water condensation? Maybe. People stumbling outside the yurt and just peeing there, perhaps? Unused broth or cooking liquids just dumped there? Its a crazy difficulty to imagine archeologists trying to track actual huns, or any group across the steppe. But if we study WHY the grass grows greener around yurts, we may be able to determine what is needed to zoom in on exactly for aerial scans using some sort of scanner across the steppes, and map out historic population migrations. By mapping out, and following it up with digs, we might be able to map these movements chronologically. There might even be distinct chemical variables seen from afar that let's us figure it out without touching down for a dig. This can give us important insights on how nomadic groups built themselves up and broke down, as well as insight as to why they periodically invaded China, Persia and Rome. Knowing this could fill gaps in Roman history. And possibly all it would take is a propeller plane, a spectrometer of some type, and a few archeological teams..... flying about, mapping grassy and desert plains.

The issue is, this guy may not even existed. The only evidence for him actually existing is a single book on sacrifices, and it appears he was a Platonist of some sorts. This makes the situation very, very awkward, given the Platonists focused heavily on Plato and Homer, and had, though varied, related ideas on how the soul metamorphed after death. I'm knee deep on this on personally right now, trying to balance a few contradictory beliefs Numenius of Apamea had on soul travel through the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer, how they seek Moisture or Ether, and Homeric and Platonic Analogies that Proclus and someone named Nonnos explained in greater depth.... I don't have all the answers to complete a full schema yet, but I can say with fair certainty that Philostratus, who wrote this story as well as a few other works, like his smaller work on Heros, where some Trojan War ghosts hang out in a vineyard and beach, don't really mesh with the system the real life Apollonius would of accepted as a Planonist. Were dealing with the imagination, in actuality, of a writer who was hired by a empress to write a story about a cult figure from Syria several generations (centuries) after the fact, and who's myths very closely intertwine with that of Jesus, in a related geographical and temporal area. A religious cult grew around thus guy, and Philostratus added a lot of the same bullshit to his story that we see in his other stories that deal nothing with him. Add to this, we have a good sense of what Apamea (a town in Syria famous for its Philosophers) put out intellectually.... I think were dealing with a horrible little fraud at worst, a very poorly fact checked work at best by a author more interested in getting played than historical accuracy. I seriously doubt anyone prior to this text being written worshipped Apollo' like in the form written, save in much shorter tidbits. It really should of made a impact ELSEWHERE. I should be bumping into NeoPlatonists discussing him a bit more than never. I have no doubt given the empress' interest in him as a saint of sorts that there wasn't a cult around him, and centuries can fill it with superstition, but this is too much for someone who dealt in Platonic terminology to be realistic, in a society that had high intellectuals locally who would of heard such stories and called bull on them. But as a solitary literary device, so be it. I just hope this isn't going to be a trend in a much larger book, constantly quoting him, as the work is of dubious accuracy and realism at best. A lot of people don't even think he existed.

Philostratus implies on one occasion that Apollonius had extra-sensory perception (Book VIII, Chapter XXVI). When emperor Domitian was murdered on September 18, 96 AD, Apollonius was said to have witnessed the event in Ephesus "about midday" on the day it happened in Rome, and told those present "Take heart, gentlemen, for the tyrant has been slain this day...". Both Philostratus and renowned historian Cassius Dio report this incident, probably on the basis of an oral tradition.[citation needed] Both state that the philosopher welcomed the deed as a praiseworthy tyrannicide.[27] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana It was recorded that on September 18th, in the year 96, a man named Apollonius of Tyana stood upon a rock at Ephesus and praised 'Stephanus' for bloody violence. His curious audience did not know that at the same time, a freedman named Stephanus would burst into the bedchamber of the Caesar Domitian to stab him. Parthenius, Sigerus, and Entellus, seniormadministrators of one sort or another, rushed in and finished the job of murdering the ruler of the Roman world, apparently making sure that Stephanus would die as well. ------ Hmmmm...

Good post. I never researched him to nearly that degree. I do however, have just the smallest of quibbles, and that is the Apollonius of Tyana reference in Ephesus. I seriously have doubts about the legitimacy, rather I should say the reality of anything that fool said about his travels. I had started reading his book several years ago, and gave it up in his travels through Baghdad, it was obvious he didn't really go anywhere, and the local rulers were made out to be cowardly idiots instead of secured sovereign rulers talking to a fool traveler who really wasn't in a place to do much to them. I couldn't even figure out how he got admitted into the palaces just to screw with them, then moving on to the next kingdom to perpetuate his con, whatever it was. So I stopped reading, as it didn't constitute either Philosophy OR History, anymore than Gulliver's Travels did. Its been a sore point for me as of late because of the time and resources I've dropped on Numenius of Apamea, many on the net namedrop Apollonius of Tyana and him together in the same breath as Neo-Pythagoreans, even though I cant really recall him having a philosophy at all other than his ability to talk smack to unseemingly bewildered soveigns. He must bust out the deep thinking in a later book. So obviously I have my doubts about any later Antioch speech, as I'm seriously thinking he just made that all up and never left his home. One of the worst works from antiquity I've ever bothered with.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RowellSK/Sandbox

http://foundinantiquity.com/2013/07/17/ancient-scrolls-where-are-the-wooden-handles/ I saw a sad mural of a Capsa, the round scroll box, some philosopher who I now forget the name of had to lug about. He was sitting next to it, full of scrolls. I started wondering just how many works you could actually fit on a scroll. Using front and back, and I presume leaving a end portion of the back unwritten on for the cover.... maybe specially treat it to make it dust or water resistant there, as well as wear and tear. I really can't tell however from the scrolls size wise how much info you can cram into it. Could a Capsa for example, hold all of Plato's and Aristotle's works, or just Plato's Republic? I dunno, but before smart phones and tablets, I must of been the last idiot philosopher around dragging a knapsack of books with me to philosophy discussions. Literally, I did.... every debate would get tangential, so I would bring every book on every discussion I thought would pop up. I was a very poor Cynic starting off in philosophy, sleeping in the rain, but had a addiction to reading that the library couldn't cover, and kept a library and desk in a small storage bin. If I had to work, switch out my books (short attention span, jump between books a lot, many at a time before I start pondering and set them aside for a while) and change of clothes if I had to go to work. It looked a bit like a office with a clothes rack on top the desk. All those books given away now. Its why I like my kindle, no fuss. I don't need to maintain anything, and will always have those books as long as amazon is around. Plus less shame in owning too much stuff. Its a sad and hipocritical aesthetic to calculate buy.... I still own a billion books in a sense, and a high luxury item, but.... I'm a hipocrite and I like it. Just wish it had infinite power, this kindle. The link above suggests, completely unknown to me, that ancient scrolls didn't come with the little toilet paper bar in the middle of them, which I didn't expect, but now makes sense. I guess the Capsa was made to ship with the Papyrus inside, packed blank to max capacity inside, then sent to the docks, stacked and shipped. The home port would receive, and take it to market. You would as the perspective buyer pop it open, look inside, examine a roll or two, strut around like a rooster in front of the shop with different Capsa designs to see what fit your style best. Bring it home, drop it next to your couch or table. When you need to write, test it out on a wax tablet, or scrapping piece of parchment, then apply what you like to the more permanent scroll. I understand why Plotinus was notorious for his bad spelling and crappy calligraphy now.... he could naturally explode into discourse, filling his mind and writing it well paced, but needed a actual scroll length to do it with.... trying to tweak it would cause him to change it, and it would fall away from the general surrealist flow of his near automatic writing, and perhaps the ends he aimed. So he knocked at a scroll at a time, perhaps saying to himself "I will go pee, then eat a sandwich at the end of this" and shoved the scroll into the Capsa. Capsa after Capsa stacked one another after a while. Some would have old sandels in them, or old sandwiches long forgotten. I'm glad that era is gone. There might be a few holdouts, too elderly to change, or too impoverished in Africa dragging books in milkcrates or backpacks all over. I still carry my Black REI Daypack with me, but it rarely has more than a book or two inside (unavailable in electronic format) and my kindle, and a ungodly amount of change in the top pocket. I don't know why I got so many Nickle and Dimes. I can imagine some guy carrying around a Capsa, with it slung against His hip, with the coins bouncing back and forth on the bottom, thinking to himself he only has a few more miles to walk.... and where in the heck is there a drinking well around?

Found this:http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charax_Spasinu Via this Chinese account of the area:http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/eastasia/romchin1.asp Its Kuwait, apparently it was one of the last cities founded by Alexander the great, and for some odd reason never excavated. Given the situation with ISIS, I am thankful for that.

So the Dacians didn't come close? They still call themselves ROMania. They tried really, really hard. Egypt, from everything I've read, simply was isolated from the rest of the empire (how this worked beyond passport and customs is beyond me, it obviously got peoplepeople, at least lower class swelling Alexandria). I can be corrected here of course, my knowledge of learning of these restrictions come from just two primary sources separated by a few centuries, and random mentions of Egypt never being properly integrated (Senate had no say, almost like a private estate of the emperors). I just don't know the primary source for that idea, wasn't my idea. I do have to disagree with the questioning of the link if Octavian actually was crowned, under the superstition that the Senate wouldn't approve him as Emperor if he did.... this is idiotic, his legions years before fought off legions in Italy during the Perusine War, he had just offed his last real contended (Mark Anthony) and the Senate already had plenty of experience in what to expect if it resisted since Julius Caesar.... but this counter-argument isn't proof for me Augustus was crowned. I'm still stumped as to how the Egyptian priesthood got to crown anyone in the first place under the old system of Ptolomy. But it seems reasonable if such king making priests did exist, you make a beeline straight to them and get them under your control. Getting them to crown you and flooding them with money seems smart.

In hindsight, it was okay. Not historically accurate, but there was plot elements that everyone knew in advance- Spartacus had to die, Julius Caesar had to live, so the writers twirked the writing to keep everyone on edge. We also all knew it was ultimately a lost cause. So I forgive them for the occasional twist. This being said, the market is rather saturated with these stories now, the survival and rebuilding under incredible odds gig... Its getting old. Spartacus was in the heat of it, just the right time for it. I'm hoping for not a repeat. Seriously, we gotta come up with something else than surviving the romans/zombies/plagues in pretty much the same storyline over and over. I give a plus to Spartacus for perfecting pornagraphic violence. Negative for man on man sex emphasis.... I got the hint the first make out scene that gays did indeed exist back then too. The show could of done more to show how Spartacus organized and lead his people. The battle tactics were non existent.... but it was a small new Zealand studio, so I grasp why. Its so similar to 300, and the 300 sequal bombed. It progressed beyond the theme of sheer survival and inevitable, heroic death.... and was dragged out, and for some reason thought everyone would be amazed at ten minutes of 3-D boobs hanging out. Except for the virgins in the theater, 3-D tits aren't exactly rare, every woman has them, and I was left watching a rather boring sex scene, that was apparently meant to be the highlight of the movie. The first 300 and Spartacus had a comic book feel to them, but its having a hard time transplanting its formulas of sex and violence to the extreme along a further, less than dire storyline where people actually have free will and can choose to retreat. Spartacus was vendetta driven, reacting to Rome every step of the way. The last 300 movie didn't show why Athens or the Persian navy mattered. Heck, if that was my only exposure to history, I would simply ask why not retreat up into the mountains? The mystic falls apart instantly. If you give your characters too much breathing room, they can become reasonable. If they embracecreason, they get boring. If they reject it, stupid. Its not easy to navigate either, yet keeping everyone in permanent suspense can't work either. Think of Hogan's Hero's.... The POWs filmed for 5 seasons, the war didn't even go that long! In the Walking Dead, every Zombie should of dehydrated and turned into beef jerky by now. In Spartacus, especially in using a prequel, they timed it well. No reasons to question the storyline in terms of time.

Its really, really sad to see a burial of a king buried under the rite of a religion he would of despised. The Angelican Church, if explained in terms of meaning as understood to modern Brits to the Catholics living during Richards reign, would of been outright appalling and sickening to them. It would of been seen as anarchism, if not outright worship of the Anti-Christ to follow such a absurd religion anthetical to Christian beliefs, and given Richard's humanitarian record (he didn't quite grasp Jesus' Ethical Teachings from what I've read of him), he likely would of of killed the Heathen Ecclesiastic presiding over his funeral himself had they ever crossed paths in the living. This be like burying Gandhi at a Baptist funeral, with a big ole beef buffet afterwards to remise on his life and works afterwards, or for the Russian Orthodox Church to use Lenin's remains as a relic under the alter of a church. It is absurd and disturbing, and shows the population has a remarkable lack of comprehension or understanding of the absurdity of their paradoxes. Why not encase a dead Cynic in a tomb of Gold, of give a Egyptian mummy a Tibetan Sky Burial, or perform a Taoist Rite over bones found in Roman Archeological Digs. Big massive F'up on the part of the British Monarchy in not figuring this one out. That king belongs not just to that little tiny, backwards palebodied island, but to every society EQUALLY descended from it.... England doesn't have sole claim. A great many archeological conventions just got trampled upon, such as respecting the religion of the individual the remains belong to. How thrilled do you think people would be if we started forcing different religious burials on Native American digs from periods clearly predating Christianity? It be retarded, and we wouldn't stand for it. But in crazy crossed eyed England, you can get away with anything. This is insulting. I don't think he even should get a burial given his track record, but if one is to be given, respect his religion, which still is very much around, and give him a actual Christian burial, not some fake made up scam of a rite by illegitimate priests. That kinda of insult is sickening. Admit you screwed up, pop him out of the ground, and do it right this time, or don't bother having a Monarchy at all. I can't believe England would insult one of its kings in such a bad way. Very disturbing.